I just banned the Chicken

[Salty]

Just because you label yourself "discordian" doesn't mean you get to be an asshole.

Who said this and when?
With the labeling and the whatsits?

As for the chicken's ban..theres not much to miss there though I do enjoy watching hostile trolls leaving dragging their shame behind them.

But kids are a line you dont cross.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Just because you label yourself "discordian" doesn't mean you get to be an asshole.

Threats and people's children should be off the fucking table, IMO unless you're really fucking familiar and intimate with the target and can make those kinds of jokes without being a cockgobbling turkey neck.

The "threat" there was vague, too.

Just a PM saying "Kids?"

Sorry, but that was enough for me.

Yeah, that's not ok.  Not like it was time for you to sit and chat about your personal lives. I'd feel threatened considering some of the stuff said & consider playing spot the chicken.

[Doktor Howl]

He basically brought constructive activity to a halt while he was here.  That's not really a reason for banning, or I would have banned him on day 2.  If he was being banned for being a retard, that would have been on day 1.

I don't take banning lightly.  I also don't see that legalese has anything to do with it.  A threat is a threat, no matter how it is couched.

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm not 100% certain that I agree with the banning, but I am 100% certain that I don't really give a shit. Between our ship's internet being down and my real life taking up 98% of my time and attention right now, I'm perfectly happy with trusting the rest of the admin team. I haven't been able to scour the board for ever post some retard makes and if Dok (or any of the other admins) think they have a justification for banning someone I'm going to adopt the default position of agreeing until and unless I am presented with hard evidence of some egregious misuse of admin powers.

[Freeky]

He basically brought constructive activity to a halt while he was here.  That's not really a reason for banning, or I would have banned him on day 2.  If he was being banned for being a retard, that would have been on day 1.

I don't take banning lightly.  I also don't see that legalese has anything to do with it.  A threat is a threat, no matter how it is couched.

The way that dude was posting, I would also go on immediate "threat level nine point red" if he just up and asked me about any of my personal life shit, ESPECIALLY if it concerned whether or not I had kids.

Not that I'm opposed to people knowing about it, I just wouldn't want that psycho douche asking out of the blue like that.

ETA:  It's implied threats, like Dok was saying.

[Pæs]

I immediately don't like it, not having seen the threats or insinuations, and being quite fond of how hard it is to get banned here without seriously attacking the place but I'm not going to dig through his posts to check it out, because I have too many to catch up on after ignoring him.

"I wasn't paying attention, so Dok is a Nazi."

Lacking any other information, I'ma just believe you had good reason.

More like "I wasn't paying attention, but I trust that Dok is acting in the board's best interests."
Or that other thing you said if you want to fight about it, asshole. Pistols at dawn?

[navkat]

Threats-no matter how thinly veiled-have always been a no-no here. TGRHowl has been pretty consistent on this. He's not doing anything new or special whether the handle is AKK or Arkham or Chicken or Beef or Pork.

Discordian or not, I take a certain amount of comfort in the knowledge that I might get my ass handed to me, but if someone wants to get personal, they're gonna have to go through Rog. That's not mod-dick-sucking, that's just how I feel. It's been done to me before and it's fucking unpleasant when someone who lives in your town gets to threaten you with personal harm and the Admins and Mods threaten to ban YOU for making a stink about it because they don't want the liability...or when someone who lives within two hours of you goes on a hunting expedition via Google for your real name, co-workers, family and other personal info so they can initiate a smear campaign to jack up your life simply because you're smarter, prettier and they hate you.

Threats and kids are off the table. Period. It's just basic decency. We're not dumbshits on here, we don't lack the imaginative effort to hit above the belt. I may call myself "discordian" and adopt an "anything goes" philosophy about things but you don't see me in a Punky Brewster costume, writhing in a kiddie-pool full of vom and feces, either.

[Telarus]

I began to notice a pattern when I called him a 'hack' in tiny letters (after the surrealist complements flood), and then he spat the word back at all of you in 3 different threads for a whole day. Then the welding thing, and (Pickle?) responding in sympathy. And how when I mentioned the "This book is a mirror" thing, he spat that back out at all of you in multiple threads. He literally _didn't post any original content_ (the Mason thread started that way.. read it, but I think that was the closes we saw to 'his voice' in actuality).

I think this was a sociololgical experiment in the Burroughs cut-up-style targeted against a few of the more 'active' posters here. Especially after he shut the hell up when I did the exact same thing to him visually with the Wordle cloud. I might be Lo5-ing this, but I'm probably not.

Weak fail was weak. If he wants back in, he can pick a different nick and personality for all I care.

[Payne]

I'm not 100% certain that I agree with the banning, but I am 100% certain that I don't really give a shit. Between our ship's internet being down and my real life taking up 98% of my time and attention right now, I'm perfectly happy with trusting the rest of the admin team. I haven't been able to scour the board for ever post some retard makes and if Dok (or any of the other admins) think they have a justification for banning someone I'm going to adopt the default position of agreeing until and unless I am presented with hard evidence of some egregious misuse of admin powers.

IAWTF

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I would have freaked out if he'd PM's me "Kids?" and probably gone straight to Roger. That would have creeped me the FUCK out, in context of everything else.

And yeah, his shtick seemed to consist mostly of him repeating things other people said to him ad nauseum. He was, IMO, either a troll or a nutjob, or a combination of the two.

[Faust]

I've been getting rogers hate mail in my inbox from this tard.

[Pæs]

I've been getting rogers hate mail in my inbox from this tard.

Is it entertaining?

[Faust]

I've been getting rogers hate mail in my inbox from this tard.

Is it entertaining?

Not really. Very bland to be honest.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

He basically brought constructive activity to a halt while he was here.  That's not really a reason for banning, or I would have banned him on day 2.  If he was being banned for being a retard, that would have been on day 1.

I don't take banning lightly.  I also don't see that legalese has anything to do with it.  A threat is a threat, no matter how it is couched.

The way that dude was posting, I would also go on immediate "threat level nine point red" if he just up and asked me about any of my personal life shit, ESPECIALLY if it concerned whether or not I had kids.

Not that I'm opposed to people knowing about it, I just wouldn't want that psycho douche asking out of the blue like that.

ETA:  It's implied threats, like Dok was saying.

THIS.

Context.

[BabylonHoruv]

There's been more bannings here lately than I have ever seen.  it looks to me like that is because there are more truly shitty people that need to be banned than usual, not like mod powers are being abused, but I do wonder just why the level of troll we are attracting has changed from amusing, and or annoying to in need of banning.